Fighting back against Harper's omnibus crime bill

Well considering his daughter was raped and murdered, I can understand his reaction. Im sure almost any parent has feelings like that when their child is endangered or hurt

How about this reaction, Bacchus:

Quote:

Mr. Boisvenu said that instead of using the death penalty against the Afghan-born Shafias, “returning them to their country might be a tougher sentence than to keep them here, where our prisons are a lot more comfortable.” He added that the Canadian immigration system should ensure that newcomers agree with Canadian justice after a more “thorough analysis” of their values and beliefs.

“The first filter is whether there are particular communities that have anti-Canadian attitudes?” Mr. Boisvenu said. “Shouldn’t these cases be treated parsimoniously, with a much more thorough investigation, than people coming from France or the United States where there is much more respect for women.”

The creep should be deported to Texas, IMHO, where they will treat him with much more respect.

See, the scumbag "apologized" for his comments about counselling suicide. But it's just a Harperite bait and switch. The real message is above.

"NDP MP Pat Martin, known for not holding back his views, said Boisvenu's comments were "appalling" and called him "an asshole."

"You stuff the Senate full of hacks and flaks and Tory idiots and you're going to get some stupid comments," he said. "Whoever put him there should apologize on his behalf if he's too stupid to apologize himself.""

Now let me say as clearly as I can that I'm not very offended if someone says, "I wish those murderers and rapists and child molestors would kill themselves". Suicide is lawful, and if counselling suicide is illegal, then that's a questionable law.

It's quite different when someone says, "we should carefully screen people from certain countries who don't share our U.S.-France-Canada style values". That's contrary to the spirit (at least) of the Canadian Human Rights Act, which bans discrimination on the basis of national origin in matters of employment, public services, etc.

So did the foul-mouthed Pat Martin call him an "asshole" for his remarks about Canadian values and immigration? I'm asking because I didn't see the comments. And did anyone from the NDP condemn this scumbag Boisvenu for his racist remarks yet?

Pat Martin was being interviewed by reporters in the lobby of the House of Commons when he made the 'asshole' comment in reference to the 'they should put ropes in the cells' comment by the Senator. They re-played Pat Martin's reaction on Power & Politics on CBC.

You'd think conservatives would at least by smart enough to realize that the death penalty is bad for society, and clearly isn't a deterrent. Every western country except the U.S. has abolished it. And the U.S. has the highest homicide rate in the Western world.

It seems Boisvenu is in favour of assisted suicide for murderers, but his party is not even in favour of assisted suicide for innocent people who have terminal illnesses.

And if his true aim is to allow convicts to end their own lives, it could be made a lot more appealing to them if they had available humane methods of self-deliverance. Only the extraordinarily desperate try to hang themselves.

Assuming Canada had extra billions in a time of large deficits, consider the birth bond – a government investment to be made each time a child is born. The investment would be held until the child turns, say, 18, and then made available for postsecondary education or an apprenticeship program. Canada has 370,000 births a year. How much could it afford to put into an ambitious investment for each newborn, instead of into jail expansion?

It’s hard to know for sure, because the federal government has refused to provide a detailed costing for several major crime bills. For instance, the Truth in Sentencing Act, which ends the near-automatic, two-for-one discount given to convicted offenders for time served in jail before trial (i.e. a year behind bars is deemed to be two years). An independent analysis, done by Kevin Page, the Parliamentary Budget Officer, projected the additional costs as high as (or higher than) $5.1-billion a year, by 2015-16, for Ottawa and the provinces. The total annual cost of the nation’s corrections system could be $9.5-billion or more, instead of $4.4-billion (as of 2009-10).

If Mr. Page is right, Canada could seed an education account for each newborn with $13,783. Outlandish? Maybe, but it makes more sense than prison expansion, if the government is intent on spending an extra $5-billion. Canada wouldn’t need a birth bond, anyway; net tuition paid by all students is $3.5-billion a year. Instead of Truth in Sentencing, the country could afford Free in University, with change left over.

Essentially, by introducing more severe minimum sentences, some accused will take their chances at a trial (currently only 1 in 10) rather than plea-bargain. That will slow down the court system and lead to more applications by defence counsel for "Askov rulings" - namely, a dismissal of charges based on the Supreme Court's 1990 decision about whether an accused's right "to be tried within a reasonable time" has been infringed under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

An Ontario Superior Court judge has struck down the three-year mandatory minimum sentence for gun possession, saying it constitutes cruel and unusual punishment in violation of the Charter....

In a 42-page decision released Monday, Justice Anne Molloy wrote that sending Leroy Smickle to prison for three years is “grossly disproportionate” to the circumstances of this case.

A reasonable person aware of its facts, the principles underlying the Charter and sentencing provisions of the Criminal Code “would consider a three-year sentence to be fundamentally unfair, outrageous, abhorrent and intolerant,” Molloy wrote.

Yes I suspect there will be an appeal though the judgement is so well written I highly doubt an appeal will succeed.

It's pretty ironic that the result in this case—the judge finding the mandatory minimum sentence to be altogether unconstitutional (that is, not just on the circumstances of this case)—is attributable to the Crown's boneheaded decision to proceed by indictment instead of summarily (which has a one-year upper limit for sentencing).

Ok - the minimum sentence provision that the judge struck down - was that part of Harper's first omnibus crime bill - the one that all MPs (of all 4 parties) supported, except Bill Siksay, who was disciplined for going against a whipped vote?

If so, shouldn't all 4 parties either: 1) be embarrassed; or 2) join forces and appeal this one to death?

I may be wrong, but my memory says that increased minimum sentences was one of the offensive provisions of that bill, which also increased the age of consent and discriminated against anal sex.

Ok - the minimum sentence provision that the judge struck down - was that part of Harper's first omnibus crime bill - the one that all MPs (of all 4 parties) supported, except Bill Siksay, who was disciplined for going against a whipped vote?

The increase in the minimum sentence (from 1 year to 3 years) when the Crown proceeds by indictment was in Bill C-10, first introduced in 2006. Bill C-10 died when the Parliament was prorogued. It was reintroduced in Bill C-2 in 2007, and came into force on May 2008.

It's pretty ironic that the result in this case—the judge finding the mandatory minimum sentence to be altogether unconstitutional (that is, not just on the circumstances of this case)—is attributable to the Crown's boneheaded decision to proceed by indictment instead of summarily (which has a one-year upper limit for sentencing).

There appears to have been no consideration at any stage of this process as to the rationale for, or even the implications of, the two-year gap in the sentences available as between the summary conviction and indictment regimes. As was stated by Code J. in Nur, at para. 128:

Quote:

There is nothing in the record of proceedings before Parliament to indicate that this two year “gap” was the result of some advertent decision or some rational policy, as opposed to mere oversight.

An attorney who helped U.S. politicians write mandatory-minimum sentencing laws during the 1980s has a warning for Canadian parliamentarians.

Imposing long jail terms for minor drug offences has been a mistake in the U.S. and won't work in Canada," said Eric E. Sterling, who once served as counsel to the U.S. House Judiciary Committee.

"When you start going down this road of building more prisons and sending people away for long periods of time, and you convince yourself that this is going to deter people you've made a colossal mistake," said Sterling, who is the president of the Maryland-based Criminal Justice Policy Foundation.

This government is not moved by any sort of protest. It takes something really spectacular like the Vikileaks attack.

How many pots plants do you have to grow to get the six months minimum sentence? I am an old lady and I have never been in trouble with the law and I have never smoked pot but I keep thinking back to Denmark when the Jews there were asked to wear the yellow arm band. The next day every Dane was wearing one. I would not be averse to planting a few seeds and getting myself arrested if all Canadians who hated this law would do it too. Think of thousands and thousands of people getting arrested. A suitabel protest for a ridiculous law?

I would not be averse to planting a few seeds and getting myself arrested if all Canadians who hated this law would do it too. Think of thousands and thousands of people getting arrested.

Tens of thousands of homeowners in Toronto have a tiny front garden where they grow all manner of plants that are not lawn - vegetables and suchlike. What if thousands of these little yards fronting some of the most expensive real estate in Canada all started growing ornamental Cannabis sativa? And some poppies for, you know, colour.

A former MP, retired judges and the former federal ombudsman for victims of crime were on Parliament Hill Thursday to list off a number of complaints about the government's omnibus crime bill. [...]

"I think fear is at the basis of much of the government's work here. And what it's going to do, unfortunately, is make Canadians, I think, more fearful and less safe," said David Daubney, a former Progressive Conservative MP in the 1980s. [...]

Daubney said a number of the bill's measures, including more mandatory minimum sentences and fewer conditional ones, and making it harder for offenders to get parole, will lead to a "burgeoning" prison population, a concern that has been expressed often during debate on the bill. [...]

Steve Sullivan, the first federal ombudsman for victims, joined Daubney and retired judges from Ontario and Yukon at the press conference.

He said the bill is being sold as one that will benefit victims when in fact there are concerns it will do the opposite. Sullivan said Crown attorneys are warning that increased caseloads due to the bill could mean more plea bargains and dropped charges.

"That's not an agenda that benefits victims of crimes who turn to the system for justice," he said.

Justice Minister Rob Nicholson and Public Safety Minister Vic Toews have a "narrow view" of what victims need, Sullivan said, adding that the Conservative government is ignoring evidence and is acting on ideology.

I find the idea of convicting offenders as being a "benefit to victims" is deeply offensive. It's as if the criminal justice process is some kind of personal vendetta in which the presumed "winner" of the contest is "benefitted" by way of schadenfreude.

Well, I agree in general terms, Spector, but surely, if you or one close to you were the victim of sexual abuse or assault or murder, and the perpetrator was apprehended, and the court system was clogged because of marijuana plant aficionadi (or whatever the plural is), and the perp went free on an Askov ruling - you might feel that the system had rendered you the opposite of a "benefit", no? I think in that sense most people can appreciate and sympathize with victims' feelings that they would not want (any more than anyone else would want) to see the guilty walk free. And it doesn't have to be defined in terms of revenge or schadenfreude to be legitimate.

And that's my whole point. We don't prosecute criminals for the "benefit" of victims (or the surviving relatives of victims, as the case may be). We all have an equal stake in seeing criminals brought to "justice", such as it is in this society. When there is a miscarriage of justice, we all have a right to feel aggrieved.

To paint the victim as the sole "beneficiary" of the criminal law is based on a fundamental misconception of justice that goes back thousands of years, and furthermore helps to spread that misconception to others.

Well, Spector, I agree entirely, but it would be nice to get the focus back on opposition to C-10.

Here's what I find ironic:

In a Conservative minority government, the "opposition" parties teamed up to support Harper's Omnibus Crime Bill (part 1), and the NDP disciplined its lone dissenter. They could have teamed up instead to defeat it. They have now been put to shame by a provincial court judge who ruled their team effort unconstitutional.

In a Conservative majority government, the "opposition" parties will of course vote against Harper's Omnibus Crime Bill (part 2) - unless, of course, there are a few punishment lovers who will stand up and vote yes with Harper. There's no danger of defeating anything now. I don't even see any support by the NDP to the grassroots movement opposing the bill - because, of course, the Manitoba government is on record as saying the bill doesn't go far enough!

"In February 2012 an Ontario Superior Court judge refused to apply a mandatory minimum sentence for a weapons offence. The appeals in this case are expected to go all the way to the Supreme Court. The omnibus crime bill could see similar instances of judges refusing to apply mandatory minimums as set out by the new legislation. If this occurs, appeals could certainly work their way up to the Supreme Court for a final decision on the fairness and legality of mandatory minimum sentencing guidelines.

"If the federal government has lost touch with the values of the majority of Canadians, and with the knowledge and concerns of the many organizations and individuals associated with the criminal justice system, it may fall to the provinces to use their powers to defend those values. . . .

"What, indeed, is to be done? It has now fallen to Canadian citizens to make their concerns felt to the provincial governments, premiers, and attorneys general. If reason is to prevail, we need to look beyond the Harper Conservatives and their narrow ideological interests to the better angels of Canadian nature."

In a Conservative minority government, the "opposition" parties teamed up to support Harper's Omnibus Crime Bill (part 1), and the NDP disciplined its lone dissenter. They could have teamed up instead to defeat it. They have now been put to shame by a provincial court judge who ruled their team effort unconstitutional.

In a Conservative majority government, the "opposition" parties will of course vote against Harper's Omnibus Crime Bill (part 2) - unless, of course, there are a few punishment lovers who will stand up and vote yes with Harper. There's no danger of defeating anything now. I don't even see any support by the NDP to the grassroots movement opposing the bill - because, of course, the Manitoba government is on record as saying the bill doesn't go far enough!

The standard recourse when challenging the constitutionality of a section that has the effect of shifting the onus toward the accused (which is what the provision at hand does) is to invoke s. 11d) of the Charter, which protects the presumption of innocence.

However, Bryant J. concludes that s. 11d) cannot be relied upon in the instant case because, in his view, it does not apply at the sentencing stage of trial. (I don't know how solid that proposition is.)

Bryant J. instead relied on s. 7 of the Charter, which he decided incorporates as a "principle of fundamental justice" the onus and standard of proof.

Despite losing a battle with Ottawa over its plan to get tough on young offenders, Quebec’s youth centres are vowing to maintain the province’s policy of rehabilitation and reintegration, which has led to the some of the lowest recidivism rates in Canada.

Changes to the federal Youth Criminal Justice Act, which come into effect Tuesday, could result in more custodial sentences and more young offenders being sentenced as adults.

“Research has shown that just being punitive doesn’t bring about the results we need — you have to look at the whole rehabilitation and reintegration aspect,” said Cathy Di Stefano, assistant provincial director with Batshaw Youth and Family Centres, who deals with young offenders.

Bertrand St-Arnaud issues instructions to all prosecutors as follows (this is just a paraphrase):

- Maintain a justice system for teenagers which is truly distinct from that of adults and which favours rehabilitiation and social reintegration.

- Prosecutors should not use the new provision allowing disclosure of the identity of a young offender, save by way of exception.

- Under clause 176 of the bill, the Crown prosecutor may ask a youth court to impose an adult sentence, and where the young person was at least 14 years of age at the time of the offence (although the provinces may increase the limit to 15 or 16) and the offence is a “serious violent offence,” the Crown prosecutor will be required to determine whether an application to impose an adult sentence should be filed; should the prosecutor decide not to file such an application, he or she will berequired to inform the court of that fact. [Whew]. The Justice Minister, by decree, has increased the limit to age 16.

The 21-year-old man pleaded guilty to reckless use of a firearm when he admitted to shooting six rounds from a .22-calibre rifle into the home of a person he claims had been tormenting him.

Nobody was hurt in the September 2011 shooting, although two people were inside the residence at the time.

Sentencing McMillan to the mandatory four years on top of the 18 months of house arrest he has already served would violate the Charter of Rights and Freedoms as a “cruel and unusual punishment,” Menzies said.

“A four-year term would clearly place the accused in the heart of the federal penitentiary system normally reserved for hardened criminals. To say that the conditions of a federal penitentiary would be harsh for someone of the accused’s background is an understatement,” Menzies said.

“In considering the facts of this case and the background of this accused, I have little hesitation in coming to the conclusion that a four-year sentence would be excessive and harsh.”

Instead, he sentenced McMillan to one year in jail and two years of supervised probation.

Hmmm, too bad that some of my old posts have been deleted, again. But at least some babblers had the foresight to quote them.

Mr. Boisvenu said that instead of using the death penalty against the Afghan-born Shafias, “returning them to their country might be a tougher sentence than to keep them here, where our prisons are a lot more comfortable.” He added that the Canadian immigration system should ensure that newcomers agree with Canadian justice after a more “thorough analysis” of their values and beliefs.

“The first filter is whether there are particular communities that have anti-Canadian attitudes?” Mr. Boisvenu said. “Shouldn’t these cases be treated parsimoniously, with a much more thorough investigation, than people coming from France or the United States where there is much more respect for women.”

The creep should be deported to Texas, IMHO, where they will treat him with much more respect.

See, the scumbag "apologized" for his comments about counselling suicide. But it's just a Harperite bait and switch. The real message is above.

So - time to deport this asshole. Any ideas whether any country would accept him?

I'm sure Justin will get around eventually to repealing Harper's draconian legislation. Maybe in his third term? Meanwhile, I propose shutting down Parliament and transferring the savings to the Supreme Court. They're getting things done.

Mr. Boisvenu said that instead of using the death penalty against the Afghan-born Shafias, “returning them to their country might be a tougher sentence than to keep them here, where our prisons are a lot more comfortable.” He added that the Canadian immigration system should ensure that newcomers agree with Canadian justice after a more “thorough analysis” of their values and beliefs.

“The first filter is whether there are particular communities that have anti-Canadian attitudes?” Mr. Boisvenu said. “Shouldn’t these cases be treated parsimoniously, with a much more thorough investigation, than people coming from France or the United States where there is much more respect for women.”

The creep should be deported to Texas, IMHO, where they will treat him with much more respect.

See, the scumbag "apologized" for his comments about counselling suicide. But it's just a Harperite bait and switch. The real message is above.

So - time to deport this asshole. Any ideas whether any country would accept him?

This decision, even thought it wasn't unanimous, still made my day. Keep these decisions coming SCC Justices.

Mr. Boisvenu said that instead of using the death penalty against the Afghan-born Shafias, “returning them to their country might be a tougher sentence than to keep them here, where our prisons are a lot more comfortable.” He added that the Canadian immigration system should ensure that newcomers agree with Canadian justice after a more “thorough analysis” of their values and beliefs.

“The first filter is whether there are particular communities that have anti-Canadian attitudes?” Mr. Boisvenu said. “Shouldn’t these cases be treated parsimoniously, with a much more thorough investigation, than people coming from France or the United States where there is much more respect for women.”

The creep should be deported to Texas, IMHO, where they will treat him with much more respect.

See, the scumbag "apologized" for his comments about counselling suicide. But it's just a Harperite bait and switch. The real message is above.

So - time to deport this asshole. Any ideas whether any country would accept him?

This decision, even thought it wasn't unanimous, still made my day. Keep these decisions coming SCC Justices.

An example of what remains 'UNdone', might include repeal of that 'shocking and outrageous attack upon fundamental values, inconsistent with a democratic society' etc etc, C-51 - which was all the buzz around these parts some time back. Until the MSM grew tired of the topic. Of course it isn't and hasn't been a 'democratic' society for some time. How could it possibly be, with such a stupid, apathetic and ill-informed citizenry as constitutes our Dominion?

Ok - the minimum sentence provision that the judge struck down - was that part of Harper's first omnibus crime bill - the one that all MPs (of all 4 parties) supported, except Bill Siksay, who was disciplined for going against a whipped vote?

If so, shouldn't all 4 parties either: 1) be embarrassed; or 2) join forces and appeal this one to death?

I may be wrong, but my memory says that increased minimum sentences was one of the offensive provisions of that bill, which also increased the age of consent and discriminated against anal sex.

"" BE IT RESOLVED that a new Liberal government will legalize marijuana and ensure the regulation and taxation of its production, distribution, and use, while enacting strict penalties for illegal trafficking, illegal importation and exportation, and impaired driving ""

I guarantee you this policy passing will reverse the ndp/liberal seat numbers by the next election.

Ok - the minimum sentence provision that the judge struck down - was that part of Harper's first omnibus crime bill - the one that all MPs (of all 4 parties) supported, except Bill Siksay, who was disciplined for going against a whipped vote?

If so, shouldn't all 4 parties either: 1) be embarrassed; or 2) join forces and appeal this one to death?

I may be wrong, but my memory says that increased minimum sentences was one of the offensive provisions of that bill, which also increased the age of consent and discriminated against anal sex.